| To: | ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|---|---|
| From: | sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Date: | Fri, 4 Jan 2013 12:16:47 -0500 (EST) |
| Message-id: | <55d42432fed319f649083c896791a758.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
There is no conflict whatsoever between being clear and precise in logic and being clear and precise in ordinary language.
It does require some work to learn any new language, natural or artificial. But the requirements are the same: make the point as clear as possible with a minimum of distracting detail.
> 2013年1月3日 matthew lange
<mclange@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> John: "Teaching
ontology by burying the fundamental insights under the
>>
trivial notation is pedagogical malpractice."
>> or
>> Leo: "The point of using mathematical (or logical)
notation is to make
>> your statement precise and
unambiguous."
>>
>> Cannot these perspectives
be harmonized?
They most definitely can. In a previous note, I quoted Paul Halmos as a mathematician who could explain his ideas clearly and precisely in English and in mathematical notation.
John
_________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (01)
| Previous by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Simplifying the language and tools for teaching and using ontology , sowa |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Intensional relation , sowa |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Intensional relation , Juan de Nadie |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Intensional relation , joseph simpson |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |